Originally Posted by cj
It would be nice to compare the NET with the old RPI over the next few years to see where they differ and which one is the most "accurate" predictor.
|
I have been tabulating, for the past 4-5 years, whether the RPI rank or the seed numbers are a more accurate predictor of NCAA tournament success. The RPI rank is an objective and understood calculation. The tournament seeding is a subjective "gut feeling" of the selection committee. I have found that it's a tossup between which method is the better predictor. Some years the RPI is more accurate at predicting winners, some years less accurate. They are NEVER very far apart.
What I have noticed however, is that the P5 teams are consistently over-seeded and the non-P5 teams are consistently under-seeded. What this does is bias the results by more frequently pitting a non-P5 team against a higher seed (tougher opponent) while the P5 higher seeded but lower RPI-ranked teams get easier first round opponents. If this bias were eliminated, my guess is that the RPI would be a consistently better predictor of results.
I think the selection committee could be entirely done away with at no loss to tournament integrity and a definite gain in fairness.